Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] arm64: dts: qcom: Add configuration for PMI8950 peripheral

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 09/12/2022 21:38, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> On 2022-12-09 17:54:50, Luca Weiss wrote:
>> On Donnerstag, 8. Dezember 2022 12:20:55 CET Marijn Suijten wrote:
>>> On 2022-12-08 11:23:17, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 08/12/2022 11:12, Marijn Suijten wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-12-04 17:19:05, Luca Weiss wrote:
>>>>>> On Freitag, 2. Dezember 2022 10:36:58 CET Marijn Suijten wrote:
>>>>>> [..]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So the way this patch does it is good or does it need changes?
>>>>>
>>>>> Except the typo(s?) pointed out in my first reply, this is good to go.
>>>>>
>>>>> If we stick with generic adc-chan node names that should be documented
>>>>> in the bindings IMO, as it is currently only captured implicitly in the
>>>>> examples.  Krzysztof, what is your thought on this?
>>>>
>>>> If I understand correctly, the outcome of other discussion [1] was to
>>>> use labels and generic node names.
>>>
>>> The outcome was to use labels in the driver and disregard node names as
>>> the new fwnode API clobbers those names by including the @xx register
>>> bit.
>>>
>>> (I'll follow up with Jonathan whether or not to remove the current
>>> fallback to node names, as [1] ended up discussing many different issues
>>> and nits)
>>>
>>>> In such case the patch was correct
>>>> (except other comments).
>>>
>>> As a consequence it _doesn't matter_ how nodes are named, and we _can_
>>> use generic node names.  My question for you is whether we should, and
>>> if we should lock that in via dt-bindings to guide everyone towards
>>> using labels (which i did _not_ do in the recently-landed PM8950 and
>>> PM6125, but will send followup for).
>>
>> FYI the patch has been merged already and is now in linux-next
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pmi8950.dtsi?id=0d97fdf380b478c358c94f50f1b942e87f407b9b
>>
>> If you have any changes that need to be done please send a follow-up patch.
> 
> Unfortunately saw that today as well, well after sending this reply.  I
> would've loved to correct the pmi8950_gpio label _gpios before someone

I don't understand what is there to correct. The "pmi8950_gpio" is a
correct label. There is no single rule saying label should have "s" at
the end. The only rules are: using underscores and having similar naming
(e.g. mdss_ for all display labels).

Best regards,
Krzysztof